A southeastern Pennsylvania woman has filed a class action lawsuit against the Delaware

County-based Prospect Park Health & Rehabilitation Residence and 10 unnamed employees over allegations that the defendants violated wage laws when the plaintiff and those similarly situated failed to secure just compensation for their duties.

Seaneh Bangalu, who resides in Yeadon, Pa., claims in her collective action that the defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the state’s Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The main allegation is that the company failed to pay the plaintiffs and her colleagues proper overtime compensation.

The suit says that five of the John Doe defendants are unknown individuals who directly or indirectly aided, abetted and/or assisted with creating and/or executing the business’s policies and practices while the other five John Doe defendants are unidentified employees who had control over processing payroll for the lead plaintiff and the other class members.

Bangalu, the named plaintiff, seeks to represent all individuals who worked for the rehab facility within the past three years as certified nursing assistants or a job title with similar duties who were not exempt from overtime pay and who were subjected to unlawful compensation policies and procedures.

The suit asserts that the class could encompass 40 or more employees.

As for Bangalu, the lead plaintiff began her employment as a certified nursing assistant with the defendant in early October of last year.

She claims that she and others like her regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but that she never received the appropriate compensation for the extra hours worked.

The suit blames improper calculation on the part of the defendants for the alleged wage law violations.

The alleged conduct, the complaint reads, is a “mere example of Defendants’ unlawful overtime policies and practices.”

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the suit says, an employer must pay a worker at least one-and-a-half times his or her regular pay rate for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week, and that in this case the defendant failed to do that.

The suit states that the defendants’ conduct in failing to properly pay the plaintiff and other class members was “willful and was not based upon any reasonable interpretation of the law.”

In addition to seeking an injunction prohibiting the defendants from continuing its illegal policy and practice, the plaintiff seeks to be compensated and reimbursed for any pay and benefits they would have received if not for the company’s illegal actions.

The suit also seeks costs, attorney’s fees, liquidated damages and other legal relief.